Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association v. HYRO FZ-LLC a/k/a HYRO FZ-LLC
Claim Number: FA0805001195145
Complainant is Webster Financial Corporation and Webster
Bank, National Association (“Complainant”), represented by Diane Duhaime, of Jorden Burt LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <www-websteronline.com>, registered with Psi-Usa, Inc. d/b/a Domain Robot.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that to the best of her knowledge she has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically May 23, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint May 27, 2008.
On May 28, 2008, Psi-Usa, Inc. d/b/a Domain Robot confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <www-websteronline.com> domain name is registered with Psi-Usa, Inc. d/b/a Domain Robot and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Psi-Usa, Inc. d/b/a Domain Robot verified that Respondent is bound by the Psi-Usa, Inc. d/b/a Domain Robot registration agreement and thereby has agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On June
3, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of
June 23, 2008,
by which Respondent could file a response to the Complaint, was transmitted to
Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on
Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts,
and to postmaster@www-websteronline.com
by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On June 26, 2008, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson to sit as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. The domain name that Respondent registered, <www-websteronline.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WEBSTER mark.
2. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the <www-websteronline.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <www-websteronline.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant registered the WEBSTER mark for the offering of various private and commercial banking and other financial services with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,801,838 issued January 6, 2004). The purpose is to provide information about the various products and services offered under the WEBSTER mark. Complainant continuously has owned and operated online banking services since at least December 1, 2005, through its <websteronline.com> domain name.
Respondent registered the <www-websteronline.com> domain name August 19, 2007. It currently resolves to a website featuring various links and a search engine, all of which purport to offer various financial services and products. The links and search engine redirect Internet users to various third-parties, most of whom offer services in direct competition with those offered under Complainant’s WEBSTER mark.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Given Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations, pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and will draw such inferences as the Panel considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires Complainant to prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Complainant established its rights in the WEBSTER mark
through registration with the USPTO pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes,
FA 652743 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the
MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”); see also
The <www-websteronline.com> domain name contains the WEBSTER mark in its entirety preceded by the general prefix “www” and a hyphen. It is followed by the generic term “online” and the generic top level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The additions of a general prefix and hyphen like “www-” and a generic term do not distinguish a disputed domain name. It is also well-established that the inclusion of a gTLD is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. Consequently, the Panel finds that the <www-websteronline.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WEBSTER mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Marie Claire Album v. Blakely, D2002-1015 (WIPO Dec. 23, 2002) (holding that the letters "www" are not distinct in the "Internet world" and thus the respondent 's <wwwmarieclaire.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the complainant's MARIE CLAIRE trademark); see also Sports Auth. Mich. Inc. v. Batu 5, FA 176541 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 23, 2003) (“The addition of a hyphen to Complainant's mark does not create a distinct characteristic capable of overcoming a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) confusingly similar analysis.”); see also Broadcom Corp. v. Domain Depot, FA 96854 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 23, 2001) (finding the <broadcomonline.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the complainant’s BROADCOM mark); see also Nev. State Bank v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 204063 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2003) (“It has been established that the addition of a generic top-level domain is irrelevant when considering whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar under the Policy.”)
The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
For the beginning of a Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)
analysis, Complainant must first make a prima
facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <www-websteronline.com> domain
name. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v.
Entm’t Commentaries,
FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must
first make a prima facie case
that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed
domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)). The
Panel finds that Complainant met this threshold and that the burden is
accordingly shifted to Respondent to demonstrate that it does have rights or
legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA
118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (“Because Complainant’s Submission
constitutes a prima facie case under the Policy, the burden effectively
shifts to Respondent.”).
Respondent did not reply to the Complaint. Therefore, the Panel presumes that Respondent
has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Nonetheless,
the Panel examines the record to determine if any evidence favors Respondent’s
position in the case pursuant to the elements listed under Policy ¶ 4(c). See
Geocities v. Geociites.com, D2000-0326 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding that
the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name because
the respondent never submitted a response or provided the panel with evidence
to suggest otherwise); see also G.D.
Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002)
(“Respondent’s failure to respond means that Respondent has not presented any
circumstances that would promote its rights or legitimate interests in the
subject domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”).
Nothing in the record indicates that Respondent is or ever
was commonly known by the <www-websteronline.com>
domain name. Moreover, the nature of the
term “www-websteronline” would be quite odd to indentify a business or person. Without any additional evidence, the Panel
finds that Respondent is not and never was commonly known by the disputed
domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi,
FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in
Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’
the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)
does not apply); see also Medline, Inc. v. Domain Active Pty. Ltd., FA
139718 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 6, 2003) (“Considering the nonsensical nature of
the [<wwwmedline.com>] domain name and its similarity to Complainant’s
registered and distinctive [MEDLINE] mark, the Panel concludes that Policy ¶
4(c)(ii) does not apply to Respondent.”).
Respondent’s <www-websteronline.com>
domain name resolves to a website featuring various links and a search engine,
all of which purport to offer a variety of financial services and
products. The links and search engine
redirect Internet users to various third-parties, most of whom offer services
in direct competition with those offered under Complainant’s WEBSTER mark. The Panel finds that this does not constitute
either a bona fide offering of goods
or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a
legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Stonybrook
Invs., LTD, FA 100182 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov.
15, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain
name where the respondent was using the complainant’s mark to redirect Internet
users to a website offering credit card services unrelated to those services
legitimately offered under the complainant’s mark); see also TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA 132439
(Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s diversionary use
of the complainant’s marks to send Internet users to a website which displayed
a series of links, some of which linked to the complainant’s competitors, was
not a bona fide offering of goods or services).
The use of the <www-websteronline.com>
domain name is also a good example of typosquatting. Respondent is using the disputed domain name
in a confusingly similar manner by deliberately misspelling Complainant’s
WEBSTER mark and the <websteronline.com> domain name, which Complainant
has used under the WEBSTER mark.
Especially since the website resolves to a list of financial related
terms and links, the intent of Respondent is to misdirect unknowing Internet
users. The Panel finds that
typosquatting indicates that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate
interests in the <www-websteronline.com>
domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Diners Club Int’l Ltd. v. Domain
Admin******It's all in the name******, FA 156839 (Nat. Arb. Forum
June 23, 2003) (holding that the respondent’s <wwwdinersclub.com> domain
name, a typosquatted version of the complainant’s DINERS CLUB mark, was
evidence in and of itself that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate
interests in the disputed domain name vis á vis the complainant); see also Nat’l Ass’n of Prof’l
Baseball Leagues, Inc. v. Zuccarini, D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003)
(“Typosquatting … as a means of redirecting consumers against their will to
another site, does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services,
whatever may be the goods or services offered at that site.”).
The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent’s use of the <www-websteronline.com> domain name constitutes a form of typosquatting. The Panel finds that any form of typosquatting is in itself evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Nat’l Ass’n of Prof’l Baseball League, Inc. v. Zuccarini, D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) (“Typosquatting is inherently parasitic and of itself evidence of bad faith.”); see also Black & Decker Corp. v. Khan, FA 137223 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 3, 2003) (finding the <wwwdewalt.com> domain name was registered to “ensnare those individuals who forget to type the period after the ‘www’ portion of [a] web-address,” which was evidence that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith).
The disputed domain
name contains a series of links and a commercial search
engine that redirect Internet users to various third-parties, many of
whom offer financial products and services in direct competition with those provided
under Complainant’s mark. The Panel
finds this to be additional evidence that Respondent registered and is using
the <www-websteronline.com>
domain name in bad faith for the purpose of disrupting Complainant’s business pursuant
to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Classic
Metal Roofs, LLC v. Interlock Indus., Ltd., FA
724554 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2006) (finding that the respondent
registered and used the <classicmetalroofing.com> domain name in bad
faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by redirecting Internet users to the
respondent’s competing website); see also
Disney Enters., Inc. v.
Noel, FA 198805 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11,
2003) (“Respondent registered a domain name confusingly similar to
Complainant's mark to divert Internet users to a competitor's website. It is a reasonable inference that Respondent's
purpose of registration and use was to either disrupt or create confusion for
Complainant's business in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii)
[and] (iv).”).
Finally, because of the confusing similarity between the <www-websteronline.com> domain name and
Complainant’s WEBSTER mark, the Panel presumes Respondent is commercially
benefitting through the use of click-through fees. This is further evidence that Respondent registered
and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Associated Newspapers Ltd. v. Domain Manager, FA 201976 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 19, 2003) (“Respondent's
prior use of the <mailonsunday.com> domain name is evidence of bad faith
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the domain name provided links to
Complainant's competitors and Respondent presumably commercially benefited from
the misleading domain name by receiving ‘click-through-fees.’”); see also
The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <www-websteronline.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist
Dated: July 10, 2008.
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum